I’m not a lawyer, just an observer. So’ I’d like to suggest, let’s test the premises of both Atty. Tan and Fr. Rannie with actual cases.

In the case of Fr. Rannie, I decided to ask him directly whether he would be willing to go to the Supreme Court to petition for bail for other detained lolos similarly charged with a capital crime. I found news reports on five lolos who have been detained for the non-bailable crime of raping young girls.

Fr. Rannie told me he was willing to file a petition before the Supreme Court. I wrote down his exact words to me –

“For as long as their counsels agree, If you can get their papers , I will gladly draft a petition (for the lolos) following the theory I’m advocating.”

The dean patiently explained to me his theory – “that the denial of bail can only take place after evidence (is presented).” He said that after an information is filed against an accused and the offense is punishable with a life term, the accused usually asks for a bail hearing so the court can weigh whether or not the evidence is strong. In Dean Rannie’s opinion, the anti-graft court Sandiganbayan erred by denying Enrile bail even while the bail hearing was going on. “Because you can deny bail only when you know the evidence of guilt is strong,” he said.

But the Dean pointed out that the Supreme Court decision penned by Associate Justice Lucas Bersamin did not at all rule on this point. Instead, he said, Bersamin’s decision to grant Enrile bail “rests on humanitarian grounds.”

Since this is the case, let’s ask lawyers to petition before the Supreme Court similar bail on humanitarian grounds for this 80-year-old grandfather who is now in jail in Sirawai, Zamboanga del Norte accused of the non-bailable crime of raping a four-year-old girl.

Remember, the main argument for Enrile’s bail, according to Associate Justice Lucas Bersamin is that

“Bail for the provisional liberty of the accused, regardless of the crime charged, should be allowed independently of the merits of the charge, provided his continued incarceration is clearly shown to be injurious to his health or to endanger his life. Indeed, denying him bail despite imperiling his health and life would not serve the true objective of preventive incarceration during the trial.”

I am presuming that since this lolo is far poorer than Sen. Enrile, and almost certainly can’t afford stem cell injections, he is even less healthy than the senator. Therefore his continued incarceration would be injurious to his health or would endanger his life even more.

But just to get the physical evidence that this lolo is less healthy, let him submit himself to a free health examination. Let’s see if he is less or more healthy than Enrile. Remember that Justice Bersamin noted the following about Enrile:

Dr. Gonzales attested that the following medical conditions, singly or collectively, could pose significant risks to the life of Enrile, to wit: (1) uncontrolled hypertension, because it could lead to brain or heart complications, including recurrence of stroke; (2) arrhythmia, because it could lead to fatal or non-fatal cardiovascular events, especially under stressful conditions; (3) coronary calcifications associated with coronary artery disease, because they could indicate a future risk for heart attack under stressful conditions; and (4) exacerbations of ACOS, because they could be triggered by certain circumstances (like excessive heat, humidity, dust or allergen exposure) which could cause a deterioration in patients with asthma or COPD.43”

And if this lolo, whose name was not given in the news report probably to protect the victim, is found to be similarly “in poor health” like Enrile, then this lolo should also be given his provisional liberty.

Because Enrile is not the only detainee who should enjoy the wisdom and compassion of the Supreme Court.

In fact, working under what could possibly become the Bersamin Doctrine, our lawyers should look around the country’s jail cells and find even more geriatric detainees who should enjoy the compassion of the Supreme Court.

Pronto.

P.S. This morning, curiosity drove me to look for other lolos who have been detained while awaiting trial. I found four others – all accused of the non-bailable and capital offense of raping minors.

Last December, a lolo was arrested in the town of Tigaon, Camarines Sur province after being accused of raping his 10-year-old apo. I am presuming this story is accurate because it was written for GMA News by Joel Locsin, my former colleague in Philippine Star. You can read Joel’s story by clicking here.
In December 2013, the Times Journal reported that a 73-year-old lolo was arrested for raping a 13-year-old girl in Zamboanga del Sur. You can read the news report here.

In 2012, Virgilio Bolanda, 71, was reported as being held at the Pasig City detention center after a mother accused him of raping her daughters aged five, seven and nine. You can read about this here.

Now the lawyers might say that Bolanda should not be granted bail under what might become the Bersamin doctrine because Bolanda might do it again. However, the same argument could perhaps be used against Enrile – that allowing him bail gives him access again to state funds, which he is accused of diverting.

Finally, there is an undated report about 74-year-old Alberto Sioson who was arrested in Hermosa, Bataan for allegedly raping a 14-year-old. You can read about it here.

To summarize, the detention of all FIVE LOLOS can be the test case of what could become the Bersamin Bail Doctrine.

Comments

MANILA – Senator Juan Ponce Enrile arrived early at the Sandiganbayan 3rd Division Friday for the pre-trial of his plunder case in connection with the pork barrel scam.

The pre-trial, however, was cancelled after the anti-graft court granted Enrile’s motion to reset the hearing.

This, as the Supreme Court (SC) has yet to decide on the motion for reconsideration filed by the Office of the Ombudsman on the high court’s decision granting the senator’s plea for a Bill of Particulars.

[The] Supreme Court has painted a picture of “injustice, inequality, partiality and preference” when it allowed Senator Juan Ponce Enrile to post bail for his temporary liberty, the Office of the Ombudsman said in its motion for reconsideration on Monday.
[…]

But Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales, in a motion for reconsideration filed with the Supreme Court, said such a ruling “confirms to our weary kababayan that a different kind and quality of justice indeed applies to the rich and powerful.”

The Ombudsman pointed out that the high court should have stayed within the bounds of the 1987 Constitution.
[…]

The Ombudsman appeal said Enrile’s case, which is plunder, falls under the exception because it is punishable by reclusion perpetua or up to 40 years imprisonment.
[…]

The Ombudsman added that the high court also disregarded the equality clause of the Constitution when it applied a different set of standards in allowing Enrile to post bail.
[…]

The Ombudsman added that Enrile, in his petition, never invoked his age or health which was the high court’s main consideration when it allowed him to post bail.

“In fact, he [Enrile] never filed a petition for bail. His ‘motion to fix bail’ which the Honorable Sandiganbayan dismissed for prematurity was anchored on very different grounds,” the Ombudsman said, adding that Enrile’s health was raised only when the Senator made a bid to be transferred to the Philippine National Police General Hospital.

Also, the Ombudsman added that the “humanitarian consideration” used by the high court can be used by future litigants as a ground for the granting of bail.

The high court, however, failed to provide a guideline.

“The lack of standards for the application of the rule laid down in the Decision makes its doctrinal value uncertain and unpredictable as far as other litigants in the future are concerned.”

“For other accused similarly situated, their pleas would have to be evaluated and resolved on a case-to-case basis. The jurisprudence, as to them would have to evolve first. In the meantime, petitioner [Enrile] has already reaped the benefits. Once again, he has been singled out for the kind of extraordinary, unprecedented and preferential treatment that the Equal Protection Clause guards against,” the Ombudsman added. JE

“One of the documents is a July 18, 2006, order issued by then Immigration Commissioner Alipio Fernandez Jr., through Associate Commissioner Roy Almoro, declaring that Poe, having been born to Filipino parents, was “presumed to be a natural-born Philippine citizen.”

Poe was PRESUMED NBFC because she was BORN TO – in tagalog, iniluwal o inianak ni – Susan according to the sworn declaration of Poe in her petition (Annex 7). Under the rules of court such presumptions could be rebutted by convincing evidence like the judicial decree of adoption (Annex 2) of Poe’s Verified Answer. BTW Poe’s judicial admission that she was adopted by Susan needs no further proof.

Poe did not state in her petition that she was born to unknown parents, being a foundling, to put into play the international laws she relied on for her NBFC. And assuming that Poe is right in claiming that she was NBFC by international laws, maybe the BID could be right also in presuming that she was born to Filipino parents. But Poe insisted in her petition that she was born not only to known parents but to a very popular couple – the king and queen of the Philippine movies.

Since Poe’s sworn statement in her petition is false on material points, the presumption of law that Poe was NBFC must fail. Consequently, the approval of Poe’s petition in Annex 10 has no legal effect. And Poe has failed to reacquire Philippine Citizenship IAW RA 9225.

Without Due Diligence, at face value (na star struck kaya? o naawa because of FPJ’s passing away)
At that time, the BI Commissioners can still be wrong by mere presumption, with out having a unadulterated evidence to prove she was NB. To date, based on what we know now, it was wrong or careless of them to ‘presume’ Grace Poe was a NBFC. Where did they base their presumption from (e.g. US and/or PHIL Passport)? Or by word of mouth, hearsay?

Not fully convinced
I think they (BI Commissioners) knew that GP was not NBFC, but they acceded with the proviso, by an act or insertion of ‘presume’ (as non conclusive).

From that BI Certification that was approved based on presumption is inconclusive. As a former citizen of the Phils., Grace Poe’s reacquisition of NBFC under the Republic Act No. 9225 is, IMO, inadmissible, if not unlawful. She never was a Natural-Born, her bio parents were naught when found. A foundling, adopted child to, NOT born to, FPJ & Susan Roces (who is barren BTW).

Am I entitled to my opinion, onerous or not?
Republic Act No. 9225 is only for ‘Natural born citizens of the Philippines who, after the effectivity of this Act, become citizens of a foreign country shall retain their Philippine citizenship upon taking the aforesaid oath.’ (see Section 3, Republic Act No. 9225)

YOU & other CPMERS, have done more research on this, and we have commented so many times on these in past articles of RR. This is just a comment refresher.

As I have commented before, many of the answers to GP’s citizenship woes can be answered from her BC details (Take note: Municipal or Health Center issued Birth Certificate may not necessarily be thesame with NSO’s system copy).

In GP’s dilemma, ‘Born to ‘ was misused, misapplied (wrong diction or choice of qualifier), deliberate or not.

As per the 1935 Phils’. Constitution, GP is not a Natural-Born Citizen of the Phils (for the nth time). There is no provision or law in the said constitution that automatically assign, grant or award a foundling either a Natural-Born or Naturalized Filipino Citizenship. Republic Act No. 9225 doesn’t even apply to her.

GP and her camp, can quote all or any UN Convention or International Law they want.

It remains, no Phils. Court of Law has heard, decided or granted Grace Poe Natural-Born Filipino Citizen status, past or present. SET is not the right Court to grant or affirm her NB Citizenship, but accommodate petitions, questions or complaints to her eligibility as a Senator, as per R David’s complaints.

‘Immigration Commissioner Alipio Fernandez Jr., through Associate Commissioner Roy Almoro’ may have committed a “grave abuse of discretion” that they “approved Poe’s application for the cancellation of the alien and immigrant certificates and the issuance of certificates for the retention and reacquisition of Filipino citizenship to her and her three children pursuant to Republic Act No. 9225, or the Dual Citizenship Law. They submitted their application on July 10, 2006.”

Ready, SET?
How will the SET Panel treat GP’s ‘born to’ clause in her Certificate?

The Order of Approval issued presuming Poe as NBFC must be revoked for fraud and misrepresentation by declaring under oath that she was born to Susan and for concealment of the fact that she was a foundling. The IRR of RA 9225 provides in Section 18 of MC 05-002:

“the Order of Approval issued under these Rules may be revoked by the Department of Justice upon a substantive finding of fraud, misrepresentation or concealment on the part of the applicant and after an administrative hearing initiated by an aggrieved party or by the Bureau of Immigration.”

But this presidentiable, used to be a lawyer for militant social causes during the dictator years. Memory (‘database’) is becoming thinner and narrower while he is aging & rusty. Has become docile.

—

Money and the love of it can change people’s once ardent social principles. Has become corrupt, a grafter, a money launderer while portraying himself as meek, humble as a social working class.

Has become so callous that his family (wife, children) too has become oblivious to it all, if has become their social norm to stay and advance their wealth, power & political dynasty.

This family rides on people’s ignorance and dunces. Even profiteering on B-day cakes for the elderly – walang patawad, basta pagkuakuartahan. Equally BLAME THOSE WHO PUT THEM THERE (benefactors, sponsors, voters).

The most appropriate observation/argument on the basis of the foregoing factual revelation. Aside from residency issues, Senator Grace Poe-Llamanzares could fall on her own sword on this one…Perjury or Falsification of Public Documents, I dare say?

The international trend [Read: “customary” (usually practiced, almost like a norm) and “conventional” (in compliance with established international conventions or guidelines on nationality laws)] exemplified DOMESTIC LEGAL REFORMS (that is, “passed legislation” and “enacted statutes” for foundlings) as clearly, undoubtedly pointed out by Poe’s lawyers on pp. 74-75 of Poe’s Verified Answer and as I had pointed out with ASEAN Member States’ good practices (excluding the Philippines) on children born of unknown parents (despite all ASEAN nations not acceding to and ratifying the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness) citing a UNHCR document and a 2015 thesis by Sangita Jaghai entitled “Statelessness and Transnational Migration: The role of States as duty-bearers to address statelessness in the ASEAN region under international law.”

Now, as regards Senator Manuel Roxas’s statement that foundlings are “few and far in between” during a 1934 deliberation by the Constitutional Convention:

Poe’s camp also cited the deliberations of the framers of the 1935 Constitution. While it did not expressly mention foundlings in Section 1, Article 4, former Senator Manuel Roxas said they would not include foundlings because the number of cases are few and that international laws are there to protect them.

“Mr. President, my humble opinion is that these cases [foundlings] are few and far in between, that the constitution need [not] refer to them. By international law the principle that children or people born in a country of unknown parents are citizens in this nation is recognized, and it is not necessary to include a provision on the subject exhaustively,” Roxas said, as cited by Poe’s verified answer.

(See also pp. 57-58 of Poe’s Verified Answer and Comment No. 84 in this blog post.)

The 1935 Constitution declared the Philippines a jus sanguinis (right of blood or right of descent) country. This is contrary to the jus soli doctrine (right of the soil or right of birthplace) that international conventions dictate in determining foundlings’ nationality and hopefully to be incorporated in a country’s nationality law. (Even up to now, we are still a jus sanguinis country.)

But in the 1935 legal instrument (the one governing a child born, for example, in 1968), the framers specified a constitutional provision accommodating a probably equally few or possibly fewer type of citizens who will AUTOMATICALLY be granted a natural-born Philippine citizenship on account of being born in the Philippines (jus soli application).

The 1935 Constitution in its ARTICLE IV, CITIZENSHIP, Section 1:

“The following are citizens of the Philippines:”

“(2) Those born in the Philippine Islands of foreign parents who, before the adoption of this Constitution, had been elected to public office in the Philippine Islands.”

There could have been other established aliens who got elected to public office earlier than the date when the 1935 Constitution took effect as the fundamental law of the Philippines BUT there was one Fermin G. Caram, a public official and a 1934 Constitutional Convention delegate, who benefitted from the provision stated above. He was born of Syrian parents.

Article IV, Sec. 1(2) is the sole exception to the rule of granting the “right of blood/descent” bestowed on Philippine citizens after the adoption of the 1935 Constitution.

It is possible that Caram’s very fortunate position is shared by others but it is also probable that he may be the lone beneficiary of such a rather odd EXCEPTION to the jus sanguinis rule. The foundlings, possibly equally few or probably greater in number compared to Caram’s situation, weren’t given the ‘priced’ constitutional provision and, parsing the elder Manuel Roxas, the right of foundlings to a nationality were just ‘left to chance.’

Statutory construction dictates that when the Constitutional Convention enumerated only a single exception to the jus sanguinis rule then it could readily be inferred that there are NO other exceptions. The legal instrument, the 1935 Constitution, must likewise internally be consistent.

A particular section of the 1935 Constitution should NOT be inconsistent with the rest of the entire fundamental law even though it says in its Article II, Sec. 2 that “the Philippines xxxxx adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land.”

The 1935, 1973, and 1987 Constitutions mandate Philippine citizenship by “right of blood/descent” while domestic legal reform which is “conventionally” laid down by international law and “customarily” practiced abroad will mandate Philippine citizenship by “right of the soil/birthplace.” If this happens, there will eventually be inconsistency…unconstitutionality.

In January 1943, Gov. Fermin Caram of the puppet provincial government of Iloilo wrote Gov. Tomas Confesor of the Free Panay and Romblon Civil Government a vital letter asking him to surrender to the Japanese Imperial Army because there is no ignominy in surrender and that the people were suffering and they needed him to help bring about peace and tranquility to Iloilo. Confesor made a stirring comprehensive historic response that electrified the resistance in Iloilo and all those who read it, including President Manuel Quezon, Gen. Douglas MacArthur and US President Franklin Roosevelt. Hundreds of copies of the letter were distributed all over Panay during the war to keep afire the flames of nationalism.

An excerpt here:

You were a member of the Constitutional Convention that adopted the Constitution of the Philippines Commonwealth. You did not only subscribe to it but you also became a Filipino citizen by virtue thereof. Now that the hour of test has come, how dare you advice the people, as you do now, to forsake that sacred document and accept anything for peace and tranquility which at all events will be only temporary? Should I hearken to you, I would be conspiring with you and the Japanese military authorities to destroy the Constitution, that you and I signed with all solemnity, and everything for which that Constitution stands. Do you realize therefore, that what you are doing now is a repudiation of your Filipino citizenship and all the sacred privileges attendant thereto, things which I am sure you hold dear and precious?

Poe argued in her Verified Answer that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) granted her NBFC. Poe stated:

“4.62. On 21 August 1990, the Philippines ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (“UNCRC”). Under Article 7 of the UNCRC, the Philippines undertook to protect the right of a new-born to a nationality, and to ensure that
every child is protected from statelessness “from birth.” The provision reads:

“Article 7

“1. The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.

“2. States Parties shall ensure the implementation of these rights in accordance with their national law and their obligations under the relevant international instruments in this field, in particular where the child would otherwise be stateless.” (pages 59-60).

In FPJ case Justice Carpio wrote in his dissenting opinion that the UNCRC would not apply to FPJ because he was no longer a child in 1990. Indeed, the UNCRC defined the “child” as one below 18 years old. J. Carpio said:

“The Philippines signed the Convention on the Rights of the Child on 26 January 1990 and ratified the same on 21 August 1990. The Convention defines a child to mean every human being below the age of eighteen years unless, under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier. Obviously, FPJ cannot invoke the Convention since he is not a child as defined in the Convention, and he was born half a century before the Convention came into existence. FPJs citizenship at birth in 1939 could not in any way be affected by the Convention which entered into force only on 2 September 1990.”

“In any event, the Convention guarantees a child the right to acquire a nationality,[30] and requires States Parties to ensure the implementation of this right, in particular where the child would otherwise be stateless.[31] Thus, as far as nationality or citizenship is concerned, the Convention guarantees the right of the child to acquire a nationality so that he may not be stateless. The Convention does not guarantee a child a citizenship at birth, but merely the right to acquire a nationality in accordance with municipal law.”

Likewise, the UNCRC would not apply to Poe because she was already 22 years old in 1990. Poe’s alternative to avoid being stateless – now that she has lost US nationality – is to apply for naturalization IAW RA 9139 or the naturalization law of 2002. She is qualified to be naturalized because Poe is more than 18 years old, has real property and business, among other qualifications.

Rene-Ipil . . . but J. Carpio’s opn was a DISSENTING OPN. What did the MAJORITY OPN say about the UNCRC on FPJ’s case? –

I went over the decision, I find nothing mentioned re: UNCRC discussion(s).

But in the FPJ case, the MAJORITY OPN did say about DNA test –

“In case proof of filiation or paternity would be unlikely to satisfactorily establish or would be difficult to obtain, DNA testing, which examines genetic codes obtained from body cells of the illegitimate child and any physical residue of the long dead parent could be resorted to. A positive match would clear up filiation or paternity.”

A positive or negative match would clear up FILIATION or PATERNITY re Sen. Poe’s case. Would she avail of this or would the SET require this DNA Test?

Re: DNA test, in the FPJ case, the COURT said –

“Parentage will still be resolved using conventional methods unless we adopt the modern and scientific ways available. Fortunately, we have now the facility and expertise in using DNA test for identification and parentage testing. The University of the Philippines Natural Science Research Institute (UP-NSRI) DNA Analysis Laboratory has now the capability to conduct DNA typing using short tandem repeat (STR) analysis. The analysis is based on the fact that the DNA of a child/person has two (2) copies, one copy from the mother and the other from the father. The DNA from the mother, the alleged father and the child are analyzed to establish parentage. Of course, being a novel scientific technique, the use of DNA test as evidence is still open to challenge. Eventually, as the appropriate case comes, courts should not hesitate to rule on the admissibility of DNA evidence. For it was said, that courts should apply the results of science when competently obtained in aid of situations presented, since to reject said result is to deny progress.” Citing the case of In Tijing vs. Court of Appeals, 354 SCRA 17.

Would it be a duty on Sen. Poe’s side to undergo a DNA test for the sake of a very important issue specially to the nation’s VOTERS?

In the FPJ case discussed above, it was rather discussed by MORALES, J. in her DISSENTING OPN that –

“The first rule is that it is for the municipal law of each State (not for International Law) to determine who are the nationals of a particular State, subject to certain limitations.”

It is the MUNICIPAL LAW and not Internation law to DETERMINE who are the nationals of a a particular State.

Her DISSENT further says –

“Thus, the citizenship of one born during the effectivity of the 1935 Constitution is determined by the provisions thereof. Moreover, the changes in the provisions on citizenship in the present Constitution may not be deemed to retroact to benefit those born before it, except only when such retroactive effect has been made explicit in the Constitution itself.”

No retraoctivity unless made EXPLICIT in the Constitution, past or present. Her DISSENT citing a case and as follows –

“In Re: Application For Admission to the Philippine Bar. Vicente D. Ching,[116] this Court held that:

x x x It should be noted, however, that the 1973 and 1987 Constitutional provisions on the election of Philippine citizenship should not be understood as having a curative effect on any irregularity in the acquisition of citizenship for those covered by the 1935 Constitution. If the citizenship of a person was subject to challenge under the old charter, it remains subject to challenge under the new charter even if the judicial challenge had not been commenced before the effectivity of the new Constitution.”

A challenge under the OLD Constitution [Charter] remains SUBJECT to challenge under a new Constitution [1987] or Charter.

Near the closing of her DISSENTING OPN, J. Morales said –

“Since FPJ then was born out of wedlock and was not acknowledged by his father, the only possible Filipino parent, at the time of his birth, the inescapable conclusion is that he is not a natural-born Philippine citizen.

Consequently, the material representations in his Certificate of Candidacy that [he] is a natural born Filipino citizen, and that [he] is eligible for the office [he] seek[s] to be elected are false. Necessarily, his Certificate of Candidacy must be cancelled pursuant to Section 78 of the Omnibus Election Code.” Bold mine.

Will he be allowed to continue his candidacy? (meaning – FPJ.]

Will she be allowed to continue her candidacy? Meaning – Sen. POE.

I find this dissenting OPN well reasoned acc to the facts and the law compared to the majority OPN.

““The first rule is that it is for the municipal law of each State (not for International Law) to determine who are the nationals of a particular State, subject to certain limitations.”

That is one of the rules laid down by the The Hague Convention in 1930 on Conflict of Nationality Laws. But surprisingly Poe cited The Hague convention of 1930 which convention, according to J. Morales, does not apply unless a pertinent local statute is passed by congress.

“4.82.1. Several provisions of the 1930 Hague Convention deal with the acquisition of nationality of several groups who traditionally face statelessness as a result of conflict of laws: married women, children, foundlings, and adopted persons. In 1968, when Respondent was born, the Hague Convention already had twenty-seven (27) State signatories and fifteen (15) State
parties. The Hague Convention now has twenty-one (21) State parties. Article 14 thereof states:

“Article 14

“A child whose parents are both unknown shall have the nationality of the country of birth. If the child’s parentage is established, its nationality shall be
determined by the rules applicable in cases where the parentage is known.

“A foundling is, until the contrary is proved, presumed to have been born on the territory of the State in which it was found.” (page 72).

Until a local law is enacted The Hague Convention of 1930 would not apply to Poe. Indeed, HB No. 1584 is still pending in the lower house since 2013 giving powers to BI to act on application for recognition of Philippine citizenship of foundlings. Likewise, a similar bill in the senate – SB 3404 – is also pending since 2009.

@Rene-Ipil.
Dare I ask, what in your opinion is the bottom line regarding citizenship and residency of Grace Poe? With a brief (ish) why.
The arguments are spread all over the blog.
My scrolling finger is much fatigued.

Going further into this POE issue, on International Law or treaties, let us also understand from the view or views of the US Supreme Court where our judicial system, similar in many aspects, had to say something:

‘The application of the Warsaw Convention – the US Sup. Court ‘USED that treat to apply resolving dispute between a carrier and a customer. The Court did not ‘adopt’ legislation to IMPLEMENT regulation. But this decision was hardly a MODEL of coherent deveopment of international rules under a multilateral treaty.’ Caps mine.

‘Other cases, the Court, like the Hague Convention case, demonstrates to apply on the Court’s COMFORT with the application of treaties where APPROPRIATE, but DID NOT indicate a broad predisposition to invoke treaty law.’ Caps mine.

a dispute on the enforcement of a ‘the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes (ICMBS), a code adopted by the World Health Assembly (WHA) in 1981. From 1982 to 2006, the WHA adopted several Resolutions to the effect that breastfeeding should be supported, promoted and protected, hence, it should be ensured that nutrition and health claims are not permitted for breastmilk substitutes.’

Petitioner filed the case seeking to nullify the RIRR rules of said International Code as it contains provisions that are not constitutional and go beyond the law it is supposed to implement, the COURT said –

“Legislation is necessary to transform the provisions of the WHA Resolutions into domestic law. The provisions of the WHA [World Health Assembly] Resolutions cannot be considered as part of the law of the land that can be implemented by executive agencies without the need of a law enacted by the legislature.’ Caps mine.

‘Soft law does not fall into any of the categories of international law set forth in Article 38, Chapter III of the 1946 Statute of the International Court of Justice.[32] It is, however, an expression of non-binding norms, principles, and practices that influence state behavior.[33] Certain declarations and resolutions of the UN General Assembly fall under this category.[34] The most notable is the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which this Court has enforced in various cases, specifically,’ the COURT said.

‘Soft law’ – The term “soft law” refers to quasi-legal instruments which do not have any legally binding force, or whose binding force is somewhat “weaker” than the binding force of traditional law, often contrasted with soft law by being referred to as “hard law”. Wikipedia source. Bold mine.

According to Sen. Poe in her Verified Answer, on Page 21, par. 2.21.4, admits and specifically avers – that she is a NBFC because of HER OLD PASSPORT –

“2.21.4. To reiterate, under R.A. No. 9225 and B.I. Memorandum Circular No. AFF-05-002, Respondent was not required to prove that she used to be a natural-born citizen of the Philippines. Respondent did not have to prove that she was, in fact, “born …to” Filipino parents. Respondent’s natural-born Filipino citizenship was presumed from her “PROOF” of Philippine citizenship, i.e., her “OLD PHILIPPINE PASSPORT.”

Bold Caps mine.

In the 1987 Constitution natural-born citizens are those who are citizens of the Philippines from birth WITHOUT HAVING TO PERFORM ANY ACT to acquire or perfect their Philippine citizenship. (SEC. 2, ART. IV)

Question: If one says he/she is NBFC because based on OLD PHILIPPINE PASSPORT, what does it mean? Is this averment in accordance with Sec. 2 above quoted acceptable legally?

How did the OLD PHILIPPINE PASSPORT come about? No explanation given in her Verified Answer.

Under the 1935 Constitution, Sen. Poe’s being a foundling or having been adopted, her claim that she is a NBFC based on on OLD PHILIPPINE PASSPORT – DOES NOT fall also in any of the 4 or 5 provisions of Section 1 ARTICLE IV on Citizenship.

Poe then has to PROVE this FACT of her OLD PHILIPPINE PASSPORT acquisition if Mr. David as Petitioner, she claims, should prove her NBFC otherwise. She averred this ‘old passport’ fact as basis, then she has the burden of proof on it first.

Is there a copy annexed to the Verified Answer on this alleged OLD PHILPPINE PASSPORT? There is no further averments on it BTW on Par. 2.21.4.

Poe LIED before US authorities when she declared in DS-4079 (Annex18) that she took her oath of allegiance with a foreign state on October 21, 2010.

Item 5b of DS-4079 asked “Have you taken an oath . . . of allegiance with a foreign state? If yes, please provide the date …. and country.”

Poe answered “Oct. 21, 2010, Philippines.”

That is a LIE. Annex 8 shows that Poe took her Oath of Allegiance (OA) to the Republic of the Philippines (RP) on July 7, 2006 before notary public Fernando Collantes in Manila. This was affirmed by BI in Annex 10.

So, what prompted Poe to lie before US authorities? Maybe she regarded her OA to RP as a trash because it was not properly accomplished or was NOT taken IAW RA 9225. Or maybe due to some tax consequences, etc., whether in US or RP or both.

This brings me to my theory that the OA purportedly taken by Poe on July 7, 2006 was defective and had NO legal effect.

The IRR of RA 9225 provides that the OA comprises the FINAL ACT that confers dual citizenship.

“Section11. Retention/ReacquisitionofPhilippineCitizenship,­

“Subject to full compliance with these Rules, the Oath of Allegiance shall be the final act to retain/reacquire Philippine citizenship.

“In case the applicant is in the Philippines, he may take his Oath of Allegiance before the Commissioner of Immigration or any officer authorized under existing laws to administer oaths. In the latter case, the applicant shall submit the Oath of Allegiance to the BI to form part of his records.

“In case the applicant is abroad, only the Consul General or a duly commissioned foreign service officer of the Philippine Foreign Post concerned shall administer the Oath of Allegiance.”

Let us assume that Poe was a former NBFC. When Poe took her OA on July 7, 2006, did she reacquire her NBFC on same date. NO. Because she has not complied with RA 9225. In fact she had NOT filed yet her application for reacquisition of NBFC. Of course her application, which was filed on July 10, 2006 (Annex 7), had not been approved yet.

Needless to say, Poe’s Alien Certificate of Registration (ACR)/Immigrant Certificate of Residence (ICR) had not been cancelled yet. An Identification Certificate (ID) not been issued yet. And as a matter of course Poe could NOT legally perform yet the FINAL ACT, that is, an Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines.

Did not Poe say before that all she needed to do was to renounce her US citizenship and take an oath of office before Philippine authorities to reacquire NBFC? Meaning that according to Poe, she had reacquired NBFC on October 21, 2010 when she took her oath of office before PNoy. And that she was qualified to become senator in 2013 insofar as citizenship and residency were concerned.

But the SC had ruled that the oath of office was NOT the OA contemplated by RA 9225. The said oath must be taken IAW RA 9225 and its IRR? Poe further assumed wrongly that she had complied with the residency requirement of ten years in 2013 for the position of P or VP because she had been inhabiting the country since 2005. Indeed, this aspect had been amply discussed in CPM.

My point is that Poe has not taken her Oath of Allegiance IAW RA 9225 up to the present. She has NOT reacquired NBFC and should vacate her senatorial seat ASAP.

it’s alarming that lying comes naturally to grace poe, lying must be in her blood. she was brought up well and good by da king and da queen kuno, attended the best of schools and guided by nuns and priests, lahat pala did not work. sayang pala ang trabaho nila, wasted on grace. kaya pala nagrebel, she’s more comfortable telling lies than truth. one lie leads to another, then another, and now her lies are catching up with her. blame the documents, they’ve been tampered with, that will be her excuse. more lies yet again.

???????? ???????? How can we teach the value of our already deminished nationalism to our youth? ?????????????????????????????????????????? How can we regain our lost pride in world stage when the enevitable comes that our first gentleman is a U.S. Citizen ?????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????? ??????

The OA is the final act or last step that enables the applicant to reacquire NBFC. Poe should have re-taken the OA after the approval of her petition because the affirmation by the BI of her OA taken before filing the petition was improper or not IAW the IRR. As I already said the OA should have conferred to Poe the NBFC on July 7, 2006 if taken IAW RA 9225.

Indeed, Poe averred in her Verified Answer:

” 4.90. Respondent re-acquired her “natural-born” Philippine citizenship when she took her Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines on 7 July 2006. At that point, Respondent had become a dual-citizen.” (Page 84).

This is misleading. The earliest that Poe could be presumed a NBFC would be after she filed on July 10, 2006 her petition declaring under oath that she was born to Susan. This must be coupled with the submission of the Old Philippine Passport. And assuming that her declaration was true, her OPP valid, her petition approved and her OA taken also on July 10, 2006, Poe could have reacquired her NBFC on the same day. But not before July 10, 2006, specifically on July 7, 2006 when she took the OA.

The renunciation is valid IAW RA 9225 under the presumption that Poe has reacquired her NBFC. I believe that such renunciation would become invalid when Poe is proven not NBFC because it would render her stateless. Even the US authorities could not have relinquished her US citizenship under such condition.

As the FINAL ACT to reacquire NBFC, the OA must be administered on or after filing and approval of the petition. In Poe’s case the OA was administered three days BEFORE filing and 11 days BEFORE approval.

Following Poe’s argument, she reacquired NBFC 11 days before approval. So, if Poe took her OA earlier on May 9, 2006 she would have been a legal resident since that date and qualify to run as P or VP in 2016.

As to your other question, Poe stated under oath in her petition, Annex 7 of her Verified Answer, that she was born to Susan and FPJ on September 3, 1968 at Iloilo City.

Under DOJ’S Memo Circular AFF-05-002 Revised rules Governing Philippine Citizenship under Republic Act (R.A) No. 9225 and Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 91, Series of 2004) http://www.philembassyberne.ch/files/revised_rules_memo.pdf
Sec 8 (Oath of Allegiance) appears to be one of the requirements that must be completed / satisfied prior to filing of the petition.

Thus, it says in the succeeding Section (Highlights mine) –

Section10. Compliance and approval procedures.­
All petitions must strictly comply with the PRECEDING requirements prior to filing at the Office of the Commissioner or at nearest Philippine Foreign Post, as the case may be. After filing of the petition, it shall be assigned to an evaluating officer who shall evaluate the same without further proceedings.

Is it possible then that it was the BID thru the DOJ Memo on the Implementing Rules who was instructive on having the OA completed first before granting the petition, let alone before having it filed?

If that was the case, I don’t see how it could be the fault of Poe. The law was clear that the BID was the principal implementing arm of RA 9225 and was given all powers it needed to carry its mandate.

IMO the IRR approved by the SOJ does not authorize or give legal effect to OA administered before approval of the petition. MC No. 05-002 does not indicate WHEN the OA must be administered or sworn before the authorities. But MC No. 04-01 mandates that the petitioner must SIGN – not swear – and ATTACH the pro-forma OA with the petition.

“Sec. 9. Submission of the Oath of Allegiance – Applicants under these Rules shall also sign and attach an Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines as follows:”

Both MCs provide that the OA is the FINAL ACT. Meaning that the previously signed and attached OA form must be administered or completed AFTER approval of the petition – NOT before approval and certainly NOT before filing – to put closure and finality to the reacquisition process.

It might not be the fault of Poe. But I think the said act of Poe as countenanced by BI without the approval of SOJ could NOT ripen into the proper OA and give legal effect to Poe’s reacquisition of NBFC.

Still on the devil’s advocate, the July 18, 2006 order has the presumption of regularity. The SOJ can only review or potentially revoke on a clear showing of material misrepresentation (fraud or concealment being out of the question).

Material in a sense that the petition could not have possibly been granted, or if so it may be under some modified or qualified form, had the information been disclosed prior to the issue of the order. I think that either way, the petition would have been granted.

Poe is also not duty bound to disclose information that is considered public or for which the government ought to know or could reasonably access to.

Did Poe take the Oath or did she just sign the Affidavit of OA? The notary, witnessed and signed that Poe did swear.

There is no way that the OA could be effectively taken or administered until the application for reacquisition of NBFC is approved. The President of the Philippines ordered that the applicant SHALL (an expression of future tense) take the OA only IF the application is approved. And only after taking the OA that the applicant SHALL be deemed to have reacquired NBFC.

Administrative Order No. 91 issued by GMA on January 12, 2004 set the procedure, to wit:

“SEC. 3. Procedure – Any person desirous of retaining or reacquiring Filipino citizenship pursuant to R. A. No. 9225 shall file his/her application with the Bureau of Immigration if he/she is in the Philippines or the Philippine Foreign Service Posts if he/she is abroad. If his/her application is approved he/she shall take his/her oath of allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines, after which he/she shall deemed to have re-acquired or retained Philippine citizenship.”

…………..The Order of Approval issued under this Rules maybe revoked by DOJ upon substantive findings of fraud,misrepresentation or concealment on the part of applicant…
——————————————————
The citizenship of Grace Poe can be decided by DOJ who is under Liberal Party…depending whether she choose to be with LP or run independent?

So, there is then another possibility of a ‘mistake in good faith’ of her PLEADING – verified Answer, on ‘Par. No. 4.90’ – a misleading factual statement.

I assume such misleading statement cannot be subject of correction.

This misleading statement GOES A LONG WAY as an effect to the point (so to say) that it necessarily makes Poe’s acquisition of her NBFC status void for the fact that her AR [affidavit of renunciation] hinges on the invalidility of re-acquiring of her NBFC status.

This particular issue could be crucial at the SET tribunal – ‘To Vacate Or Not To Vacate’ her Senate seat ASAP (borrowing your phrase).

I always believed Grace Poe may be a champion for the PH foundlings’ cause of AUTOMATICALLY becoming natural-born Philippine citizens. I wanted her to run for higher office for this.

I challenged her opponents before to challenge her citizenship because there is still NO specific Philippine law that will grant natural-born status to PH foundlings by applying the “right of the soil” to them. We are, since the 1935 Constitution, a jus sanguinis (“right of blood”) country.

I sure hope that this ongoing Supreme Court route will help the foundlings Poe is perceived by some to be championing or Poe is trying to project she is championing.

Recently, as we already know, in her Verified Answer to the challenge on her citizenship, Poe was observed to declare:

On August 21, 1990, the Philippines ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, protecting the right of a new-born to a nationality, and to ensure that every child is protected from statelessness from birth.

The 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which the Philippines ratified on October 23, 1986, recognized the right of every child “to acquire a nationality.”

While the country adopted these two conventions years after Poe was born, her camp said they are retroactive. Citing the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, they said there is no prohibition against the retroactive application of treaties unless a different intention appears.

Yes, foundlings have the right to a nationality but you must bestow them this right by “passing legislation” or “enacting statutes” (as Poe herself noted in her Verified Answer pp. 74 and 75). This is the international trend (“customary” and “conventional”) as Poe’s lawyers clearly, indubitably stated.

In fact, most ASEAN countries, save for a few including the Philippines which never created a legal provision for the foundlings, went for the required LEGAL REFORM in aid of children with unknown parentage.

Now, as a parallel path to the SUPREME COURT ROUTE petitioner David had undertaken and Poe is now facing, I again challenge the Philippine Government to go through the RATIFICATION ROUTE in order to help PH foundlings, like Poe (adult) and the hypothetical pediatric Baby Marciano, receive their Right to a Nationality…albeit retroactive in nature (like the CRC and the ICCPR).

Perhaps even Poe and her supporters, former CJ Panganiban and Harvard lawyer Tan included, will join in the clamor to immediately require the Philippine Government to once and for all accede to and ratify the 1961 U.N. Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness.

This will also hopefully signify that we are one on this…

For we are all HIGHLY SENSITIVE to the plight of all the foundlings found here in the Philippines.

A good important point you brought out baycas . . . Would the SET (or SC) pronounce a favorable ruling to POE by way of the ‘incorporation doctrine’ on treaties etc. on this matter?

Btw, the ‘incorporation doctrine’ comes from US Supreme Court decisions based on their Constitution’s provisions – a federal system of government, which we do not have. The closet or nearest we have about

this ‘incorporation doctrine’ is – “SECTION 2. The Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy, adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land x x x” ART. II – 1987 Philippine Constitution,

but this provision is much different from US ‘incorporation doctrine’ applications based on their federalism system of government. On ‘treaties’ US Constitution provides differently –

“2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land. . .” ART. VI US Const. ‘Treaties’ are thus concurred/approved by their Senate without which any treaty is not binding on the US Gov’t including the Courts.

In the Philippine setting, what we have in our Constitution is – “adopts the generally accepted principles of international law as part of the law of the land” – adopting the generally accepted PRINCIPLES of International Law – as PART of the law of the land.

‘Principles’ . . . and not ‘treaties.’ A big difference. So, a ‘treaty’ must always be approved/concurred by our Senate as constitutionally provided. Can our SC ‘presume’ to adopt a ‘treaty’ under ‘Principles’ – meaning, in a given case? If yes, would it not be wrong and be attacked as a judicial legislation?

I move for the immediate approval of HB No. 3404 which authorizes the Board of Commissioners of the BID “to act on application for recognition of Philippine citizenship of foundlings found in the Philippines.”

‘The Philippines is beset with serious problems and is lagging behind most of its Asian neighbors; the last thing it needs is another sweet faced know-nothing in Malacañang, who is out of her league and unable to come up with the right decisions to move the country forward.’

‘Our advise to Poe, stay in the senate for another decade and prove yourself first before aspiring for higher office. Why? Because at this stage, you’re not even fully qualified as a senator.’

I agree above and also below –

‘The woman is ambitious. We should all admire her for that. But as they say in politics, just because you can win does not mean you should (run for office).’

She needs to be expelled from the senate but where will she go ?? Besides her fellow poewaya from the senate will miss her. WA quorum or wa konting accentless speakers in the senado, not a single ONE ☺

Americans enunciate their speech with ‘ya kno-o-w-ow’. Pinoys with ‘nd op kurs es poesible’. I remember an Aussie boss of mine, she trying hard to sound Brit, called me a lassie and I trying hard not to double up, had to suppress a ‘woof, woof’. I thought a plain lass would have done, but then that’s just me. Better to sound just like Kris than in the senate. No difference there, they are
one and the same, except that Kris didn’t need to campaign for her spot, nor did she claim to be a foundling. Now, poenebre be dreaming of pulotgata ☺poe###ama !!!!

and everyone else is a paid hack? huhuhu. i wasnt even insinuating you were a paid hack, i was just having fun with your TAGA tag lol.
however, you are much worse than a paid hack….you are a____. gaddammit! i dont even know how to describe what you are hahaha.

I’m thanking @Parekoy reminding us not to put up with these trollilings,, nothing you can get from them but IQ dropped and BP shoot up,,,LOL,, I will not go to their world of pure imagination, but here is my bottom line,, assuming GP passed the citizenship issue( ??) one thing i cant stand is the possible US Cutezen as the 1st Ginoo,, ay ginoo,, paano sya kakampanya kay Gracia???? bawal ata yun as a US citizen.., ( Ibotow pow natin si Grace Poew.) I will take the mean-mean Korina kahit daw sya ay merong pang-tabloid na issue sabi ng mga trolillings. sa mga comments ng netizens/twitters/FB, Roxas City is the most positive… Roxas is confident….

“Rizalito David, who is also Executive Director of Pro-Life Foundation, said the decision “says a lot about Poe as a leader.”

“There was a time in your life when you went to America and you changed your citizenship. You renounced your being a Filipino and now you are returning and you want to be a Filipino again because you want to run for President.” He told ABS-CBN News

“If you renounced your Filipino citizenship, it’s like losing your right to become president of the country.” (ABS-CBN 9/04/15)

I presume that what Rizalito David meant was – after renouncing her Filipino citizenship once and became a yankee doodle of Uncle Sam, grace is now aspiring to be the P of the country after re-acquiring her NBFC not because she loves the country more but because she is leading in the surveys due to the magic of her surname.

She is a newbie in the senate and we don’t know if she’ll be corrupt in the future like her political backers/friends but one thing is sure – she won’t adhere to the Daang Matuwid of PNoy because the latter’s anointed one is likely to be her opponent next year, a man who won’t be tempted with dirty money because he has more material resources than grace and her political backers combined.

You’re right, Raissa, that there’s historical experience that the rich also steal – to be more richer.

However, in the case of billionaire Mar, his records as cabinet members of erap, gma and PNoy have not been tainted with corruption of any kind whatsoever as he is seen to be preserving the good names of former president Manuel Roxas and his father, former senator Gerry Roxas.

I firmly believe that Mar is incorruptible and won’t be tempted to put his finger in a cookie jar

Recently, a Filipino cooking page on Facebook started spouting pro-Marcos gibberish and linked to the “top 10 establishments built under the Marcos regime.”

You’d think that by “establishments” a cooking page would mean “resto,” or “auberge” or even “carinderia,”, but no it turns out it means “buildings.” And the list isn’t even complete–it doesn’t mention the millions in sleazy kickbacks and commissions the Marcoses got for each project.

Anyway, what the FB page did is just plain WRONG. It’s wrong because if you’re a Filipino food recipe page, you shouldn’t talk about Martial Law’s construction projects: you should give examples of famous recipes from the dictatorship. Don’t know any of those recipes? Well, lucky for you, those who experienced Martial Law do. Here are a few.

Procedure:
1. Take the car. Separate it from Enrile until your Enrile is very far from the car.
2. Have car drive down the road.
3. Take the automatic weapon and shoot the car 500 times, peppering it well.
4. Serve hot.
5. Declare martial law.
_____________________________

Madame Imelda’s Turo-Turo Espesyal
(this is a treasured secret of the Marcos family, so precious it was locked up in one of their illegal Swiss bank vaults but we managed to fish it out).
Ingredients
one Imelda
jewels
shoes
businesses
penthouses
condos
NYC department stores

Procedure
1. Take the Imelda and have her waddle near the other ingredients pointing to them while saying “that’s mine.”
2. Get out of the way before she grabs you too.
3. Eat in a turo-turo. That’s all you’ll be able to afford after Madame Imelda is finished.
_________________________

Pinaupong Bongbong
(this is a comfort dish you prepare when you feel you have to stay abroad for a while because you were chased out of the country)
Ingredients
one telco company, preferably Philcomsat
one Bongbong

Procedure
1. Get the Bongbong and seat him in the telco company.
2. Make sure the telco company secretly sends most of its earnings to an account abroad.
3. Using the money in that account, eat in any fancy expensive restaurant in the world. With the amount of stolen money, you can do this everyday for 200 years.
_____________________________

Nakaw Na Yaman ala Conjugal
Ingredients
one dictator
one dictator’s wife
one william saunders
one jane ryan
several billion dollars

Procedure
1. Milx all the ingredients well until you can produce several fake foundations.
2. Divide into equal portions and store in Swiss banks.
3. It will be ready after 30 years.
4. Eat like pigs.
_______________________________

Procedure
1. Take the technocrats and remove their spines.
2. Use them to secure foreign loans.
3. Stuff them with behest loans.
4. Cook the books.
5. Give the loans to cronies.
6. Serve with contempt.
7. If anybody complains about the cooking, introduce them to another Marcos specialty: Tinadtad na Pinoy.

______________________________

Tupig con Leche
(no Martial Law meal was complete without this classic dessert)
Ingredients
One Ferdinand
One Imelda

Procedure
1. Take the Ferdinand and mix with the Imelda.
2. You now have twopig.
3. Shout “leche!” at it.

Can a case or cases, a Comelec case or even a direct SC case, be filed to question Sen.Poe’s qualification, running for the position of President BEFORE the elections of 2016?

In the FPJ cases, adopted father of Sen. Poe, the COURT said -[Vitug, J., writer of the Opinion):

“The Court must dismiss, for lack of jurisdiction and prematurity, the petitions in G. R. No. 161434 and No. 161634 both having been directly elevated to this Court in the latters capacity as the only tribunal to resolve a presidential and vice-presidential election contest under the Constitution. Evidently, the primary jurisdiction of the Court can directly be invoked only after, not before, the elections are held.”

Lack of jurisdiction and Prematurity. The COURT’s jurisdiction can directly be invoked only after not before, the elections are held.

So, Sen. Poe can run for P and until declared disqualified, she can be elected as P. Can she perform and act as the elected P until the COURT says otherwise as ruled in the FPJ cases?

(In this situation, as I ‘replied’ earlier in this Blog site, a Vice-President is a GOOD position – as VP – he/she is Acting President or may even be the President [for awhile] )

One of the primary issues that Poe faced during the campaign period was the disqualification case filed before the Commission on Elections (Comelec) and later elevated to the Supreme Court about his citizenship.[2] Even though he was born in the Philippines, lawyers, including Atty. Maria C. Jeanette Tecson, who filed the disqualification case argued that Poe was not a natural-born Filipino, a requirement for a presidential candidate, because he was an illegitimate child who should have followed the citizenship of his American mother. They argued that Poe’s father was not a Filipino either because records indicated that Poe’s father was a Spanish national.

The Supreme Court voted 8-5, with one abstention, in favor of Poe. The high court upheld the previous Comelec ruling and declared Poe was a “natural-born citizen and qualified to run.” Supreme Court Justice Hilario Davide, Jr. said a preponderance of evidence established that Poe’s father was a Filipino because Poe’s grandfather, Lorenzo, had not declared allegiance to Spain by virtue of the Treaty of Paris and the Philippine Bill of 1902. Davide said that, in the case of an illegitimate child whose father is a Filipino and whose mother is an alien, proof of paternity is enough for the child to take after the citizenship of his putative father.

I don’t know if you will subscribe to this.
But in the lingo of corrupt policemen, politicians and even journalists, there is a whale of difference between “parating” and “darating.”
Darating means will come while “parating” means the regular tara or money coming from illegal activities.

In connection with campaign ads, may I ask if the following campaign expense caps in RA 7166 is still valid (section 13):

– P10 per voter for presidential and vice presidential candidates
– P3 per voter for other candidates who are members of a political party
– P5 per voter for independent candidates
– P5 per voter for political parties

The reason I ask is that the P10 per voter cap seems rather small for a Presidential campaign. Consider the allowed campaign period of Feb, Mar, Apr to a few days before the election in May — say only 3 months.

A TV plug for 15 sec, I understand cost P0.25m per plug. Say 5 plugs per day for 2 channels ABS-CBN and GMA News for 3 months, and we have the following expenses:

P0.25mx5x2x30x3 = P225m for 15 sec TV plugs.

With about P50m national voters, a Pres candidate is allowed a campaign expense cap of P10x50m = P500m. Even if the P5 per voter allowance for political party is thrown in to Pres candidate allowed expense, the total comes to P750m. With logistics for provincial sorties and campaign material expenses, the total of P750m allowance is rather small, considering that TV ads already total about P225m as estimated above?

By the way the TV ad of GP provided by @baycas’ link is 31 sec — thus about P0.5m per tv plug. GP may incur for that kind of tv ad for 1.5 months or 45 days for JUST ONE plug a day for each TV channel ABS-CBN and GMA News before COC filing of about:

P0.5mx2x45 = P45m

That estimate DOES NOT include expenses for provincial sorties and other campaign materials and logistics. And we are not yet in the campaign period of Feb to a few days before May 2016 election.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comment

Name *

Email *

Website

If A New Comment Is Posted:

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a SocialistThen they came fof the Trade Unionists, and I did not out speak out— Because I was not a Trade Unionist.Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a Jew.Then they came for me— And there was no one left to speak for me. —Martin Niemöller (1892-1984)

sam on No to charter change advocates to celebrate Edsa People Power as day of protest: “Alvarez wants abolition of UN, creation of ‘United Nations of Asia’ http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/news/nation/644263/alvarez-wants-abolition-of-un-creation-of-united-nations-of-asia/story/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sobra ang…” Feb 22, 10:05